Here's why this conversation is silly: According to the stats and methodology PFF used, Mathis is ranked wherever they have him ranked. Period. You don't have to like their rankings. You are free to feel their method is silly or wrong. However noone has any - ANY - legitimate argument against them unless they can somehow show that PFF deviated in their methodology. Flawed or not, by their method, Mathis is rated where he is.

Before calling me an idiot, make sure you take careful note of the italicized emphasis. Also note that this in no way implies that I either do or don't put any stock in anything PFF does.

The Eagles were actually worse running to the left side than the right side last year per football outsiders. Is this fully an indictment of Mathis, absolutley not, as he was flanked by DeMetress Bell and King Dunlap at LT and Dallas Reynolds at C. That said I would expect that with our best OL on the left side, and a guy with a strong run blocking rating per PFF would have much more success than that.

You completely miss the point. Phire sort of got it, but not totally.

Does PFF have a set of controls and/or statistics that they can use for all the players they rated? Did they apply these consistantly to all the players they rated? You could argue flawed methodology, but if the answer to those 2 questions is yes, then you can't argue with their rankings.

I swear, why is it such a horrible thing that an Eagles player is highly rated? Literally every time that happens, people come out of the woodwork to cry foul. So PFF rates Mathis highly. Good for him. Even if their methodology is flawed, there could actually be something to it, right?

I wasn't saying its a horrible thing. I'm presenting a valid argument of why some would say he didn't deserve it.

And you can argue with their rankings if their methods are flawed and the fact is if you give a positive run blocking rating to someone who is on the worst run blocking side of his respective OL then there it is at least questionable. Also, if you use the same ratings to rate a guard to a quarterback, then the logic is flawed.

Not necessarily. It depends on how you use the rankings. It's certainly possible to come up with a set of metrics that (theoretically) determine how well a player played, or whatever you want to determine, and then compare those across positions.

While you may or may not have a valid argument as to why Mathis may or may not have deserved it, it really didn't apply in any way to the post you responded to.

To be honest I don't see much of a difference between finding PFF's findings questionable and finding someone applying an arm-length test to pre-determine which prospects will fail or succeed in the NFL as questionable as well.

When someone reaches a wacky conclusion, people have a right to question those conclusions, AND the methodology. PFF puts out a list and we critique it. It creates dialogue which is their goal.

I'm sure the casual fan would love to hear that their offensive lineman is being ranked #1 in the league by some website. But I'm not surprised at all that people here are taken aback when we had to watch arguably the worst offensive line in history for months, then being told we actually have the 2nd best player on offense in professional football today._________________

To be honest I don't see much of a difference between finding PFF's findings questionable and finding someone applying an arm-length test to pre-determine which prospects will fail or succeed in the NFL as questionable as well.

When someone reaches a wacky conclusion, people have a right to question those conclusions, AND the methodology. PFF puts out a list and we critique it. It creates dialogue which is their goal.

I'm sure the casual fan would love to hear that their offensive lineman is being ranked #1 in the league by some website. But I'm not surprised at all that people here are taken aback when we had to watch arguably the worst offensive line in history for months, then being told we actually have the 2nd best player on offense in professional football today.

If 4 out of the 5 apples in your pie are rotten, then your pie will suck.

The Eagles had a website grade one of their players out to actually be good. Enjoy it. But of, course, the Eagles are not allowed to have players at or near the top of their position...

To be honest I don't see much of a difference between finding PFF's findings questionable and finding someone applying an arm-length test to pre-determine which prospects will fail or succeed in the NFL as questionable as well.

When someone reaches a wacky conclusion, people have a right to question those conclusions, AND the methodology. PFF puts out a list and we critique it. It creates dialogue which is their goal.

I'm sure the casual fan would love to hear that their offensive lineman is being ranked #1 in the league by some website. But I'm not surprised at all that people here are taken aback when we had to watch arguably the worst offensive line in history for months, then being told we actually have the 2nd best player on offense in professional football today.

If 4 out of the 5 apples in your pie are rotten, then your pie will suck.

The Eagles had a website grade one of their players out to actually be good. Enjoy it. But of, course, the Eagles are not allowed to have players at or near the top of their position...

It gets really old hearing people whine all the time.

In your own opinion was Mathis the second best offensive player in all of football last year behind only Adrian Peterson?_________________

To be honest I don't see much of a difference between finding PFF's findings questionable and finding someone applying an arm-length test to pre-determine which prospects will fail or succeed in the NFL as questionable as well.

When someone reaches a wacky conclusion, people have a right to question those conclusions, AND the methodology. PFF puts out a list and we critique it. It creates dialogue which is their goal.

I'm sure the casual fan would love to hear that their offensive lineman is being ranked #1 in the league by some website. But I'm not surprised at all that people here are taken aback when we had to watch arguably the worst offensive line in history for months, then being told we actually have the 2nd best player on offense in professional football today.

If 4 out of the 5 apples in your pie are rotten, then your pie will suck.

The Eagles had a website grade one of their players out to actually be good. Enjoy it. But of, course, the Eagles are not allowed to have players at or near the top of their position...

It gets really old hearing people whine all the time.

In your own opinion was Mathis the second best offensive player in all of football last year behind only Adrian Peterson?

By your apparent frustration and emoticon use, you have obviously completely missed what I have been saying in multiple posts. If either of us should be using that emoticon based on responses in this thread, it is inarguably me.

To be honest I don't see much of a difference between finding PFF's findings questionable and finding someone applying an arm-length test to pre-determine which prospects will fail or succeed in the NFL as questionable as well.

When someone reaches a wacky conclusion, people have a right to question those conclusions, AND the methodology. PFF puts out a list and we critique it. It creates dialogue which is their goal.

I'm sure the casual fan would love to hear that their offensive lineman is being ranked #1 in the league by some website. But I'm not surprised at all that people here are taken aback when we had to watch arguably the worst offensive line in history for months, then being told we actually have the 2nd best player on offense in professional football today.

If 4 out of the 5 apples in your pie are rotten, then your pie will suck.

The Eagles had a website grade one of their players out to actually be good. Enjoy it. But of, course, the Eagles are not allowed to have players at or near the top of their position...

It gets really old hearing people whine all the time.

In your own opinion was Mathis the second best offensive player in all of football last year behind only Adrian Peterson?

By your apparent frustration and emoticon use, you have obviously completely missed what I have been saying in multiple posts. If either of us should be using that emoticon based on responses in this thread, it is inarguably me.

In your own opinion was Mathis the second best offensive player in all of football last year behind only Adrian Peterson?_________________

To be honest I don't see much of a difference between finding PFF's findings questionable and finding someone applying an arm-length test to pre-determine which prospects will fail or succeed in the NFL as questionable as well.

When someone reaches a wacky conclusion, people have a right to question those conclusions, AND the methodology. PFF puts out a list and we critique it. It creates dialogue which is their goal.

I'm sure the casual fan would love to hear that their offensive lineman is being ranked #1 in the league by some website. But I'm not surprised at all that people here are taken aback when we had to watch arguably the worst offensive line in history for months, then being told we actually have the 2nd best player on offense in professional football today.

If 4 out of the 5 apples in your pie are rotten, then your pie will suck.

The Eagles had a website grade one of their players out to actually be good. Enjoy it. But of, course, the Eagles are not allowed to have players at or near the top of their position...

It gets really old hearing people whine all the time.

In your own opinion was Mathis the second best offensive player in all of football last year behind only Adrian Peterson?

By your apparent frustration and emoticon use, you have obviously completely missed what I have been saying in multiple posts. If either of us should be using that emoticon based on responses in this thread, it is inarguably me.

In your own opinion was Mathis the second best offensive player in all of football last year behind only Adrian Peterson?

The only appropriate response to the repeated asking of that question is:

I know, I know, you think that somehow whether I answer or not actually means something. That if I don't or if I answer in a certain way it gives you some sort of win or proves somes sort of point. It doesn't. At all. Not even a little bit. It merely demonstrates how badly you have missed the point. Once again, the only appropriate response:

To be honest I don't see much of a difference between finding PFF's findings questionable and finding someone applying an arm-length test to pre-determine which prospects will fail or succeed in the NFL as questionable as well.

When someone reaches a wacky conclusion, people have a right to question those conclusions, AND the methodology. PFF puts out a list and we critique it. It creates dialogue which is their goal.

I'm sure the casual fan would love to hear that their offensive lineman is being ranked #1 in the league by some website. But I'm not surprised at all that people here are taken aback when we had to watch arguably the worst offensive line in history for months, then being told we actually have the 2nd best player on offense in professional football today.

If 4 out of the 5 apples in your pie are rotten, then your pie will suck.

The Eagles had a website grade one of their players out to actually be good. Enjoy it. But of, course, the Eagles are not allowed to have players at or near the top of their position...

It gets really old hearing people whine all the time.

See, you're irked that we can't just accept that one of our players is receiving a high mark, the highest mark, for offensive linemen by a website, and so you're sweeping their shoddy method and their hilarious conclusion under the rug._________________

To be honest I don't see much of a difference between finding PFF's findings questionable and finding someone applying an arm-length test to pre-determine which prospects will fail or succeed in the NFL as questionable as well.

When someone reaches a wacky conclusion, people have a right to question those conclusions, AND the methodology. PFF puts out a list and we critique it. It creates dialogue which is their goal.

I'm sure the casual fan would love to hear that their offensive lineman is being ranked #1 in the league by some website. But I'm not surprised at all that people here are taken aback when we had to watch arguably the worst offensive line in history for months, then being told we actually have the 2nd best player on offense in professional football today.

If 4 out of the 5 apples in your pie are rotten, then your pie will suck.

The Eagles had a website grade one of their players out to actually be good. Enjoy it. But of, course, the Eagles are not allowed to have players at or near the top of their position...

It gets really old hearing people whine all the time.

See, you're irked that we can't just accept that one of our players is receiving a high mark, the highest mark, for offensive linemen by a website, and so you're sweeping their shoddy method and their hilarious conclusion under the rug.

To be honest I don't see much of a difference between finding PFF's findings questionable and finding someone applying an arm-length test to pre-determine which prospects will fail or succeed in the NFL as questionable as well.

When someone reaches a wacky conclusion, people have a right to question those conclusions, AND the methodology. PFF puts out a list and we critique it. It creates dialogue which is their goal.

I'm sure the casual fan would love to hear that their offensive lineman is being ranked #1 in the league by some website. But I'm not surprised at all that people here are taken aback when we had to watch arguably the worst offensive line in history for months, then being told we actually have the 2nd best player on offense in professional football today.

If 4 out of the 5 apples in your pie are rotten, then your pie will suck.

The Eagles had a website grade one of their players out to actually be good. Enjoy it. But of, course, the Eagles are not allowed to have players at or near the top of their position...

It gets really old hearing people whine all the time.

See, you're irked that we can't just accept that one of our players is receiving a high mark, the highest mark, for offensive linemen by a website, and so you're sweeping their shoddy method and their hilarious conclusion under the rug.

Except I'm not. At all. Not even a little bit.

Reading comprehension is a good thing people.

I'm completely comprehending what you've written. What I'm not comprehending is why you're making such an argument in the first place.

Quote:

Does PFF have a set of controls and/or statistics that they can use for all the players they rated? Did they apply these consistantly to all the players they rated? You could argue flawed methodology, but if the answer to those 2 questions is yes, then you can't argue with their rankings.

Again, nobody is interested in arguing that PFF's results were wrong according to their method. And that's exactly where you lost me.

PFF baked their pie and put it on the table. We can eat it if we want to, then critique the end product. Nobody is arguing that PFF did not create a pie according to their recipe. We're saying the pie tastes funny._________________

To be honest I don't see much of a difference between finding PFF's findings questionable and finding someone applying an arm-length test to pre-determine which prospects will fail or succeed in the NFL as questionable as well.

When someone reaches a wacky conclusion, people have a right to question those conclusions, AND the methodology. PFF puts out a list and we critique it. It creates dialogue which is their goal.

I'm sure the casual fan would love to hear that their offensive lineman is being ranked #1 in the league by some website. But I'm not surprised at all that people here are taken aback when we had to watch arguably the worst offensive line in history for months, then being told we actually have the 2nd best player on offense in professional football today.

If 4 out of the 5 apples in your pie are rotten, then your pie will suck.

The Eagles had a website grade one of their players out to actually be good. Enjoy it. But of, course, the Eagles are not allowed to have players at or near the top of their position...

It gets really old hearing people whine all the time.

See, you're irked that we can't just accept that one of our players is receiving a high mark, the highest mark, for offensive linemen by a website, and so you're sweeping their shoddy method and their hilarious conclusion under the rug.

Except I'm not. At all. Not even a little bit.

Reading comprehension is a good thing people.

I'm completely comprehending what you've written. What I'm not comprehending is why you're making such an argument in the first place.

Quote:

Does PFF have a set of controls and/or statistics that they can use for all the players they rated? Did they apply these consistantly to all the players they rated? You could argue flawed methodology, but if the answer to those 2 questions is yes, then you can't argue with their rankings.

Again, nobody is interested in arguing that PFF's results were wrong according to their method. And that's exactly where you lost me.

PFF baked their pie and put it on the table. We can eat it if we want to, then critique the end product. Nobody is arguing that PFF did not create a pie according to their recipe. We're saying the pie tastes funny.

So, since you comprehended what I wrote, at what point was it that I ignored there methodology? I even made a point to mention it...multiple times...

PFF applied their formula to everyone the same. They have numbers and stuff to back it up (such as they are...). People are here crying and screaming about how that "doesn't seem right". Every time someone rates an Eagles player well the same thing happens. "They're not credible". "He's overrated". So on and so forth. Let it go. According to the metrics they use, Mathis is whatever he was rated (I haven't even looked because I don't care). By arguing that that is not so, you are arguing that they deviated from their methodology.